The plaintiff applied to the court but was refused. Being unsatisfied, the plaintiff appealed according to paragraph 46 of Act of Medical Observation. After judging, the second instance court confirmed that there couldn’t be any reason for compulsory admission to make patient have sufficient medical treatments without any possibility of medical treatments according to the opinion of director of the medical institute, even though the possibility of medical treatments had been confirmed by the first instance court. Furthermore, if the patient would indeed be necessary to compulsory admission, the first instance court should take the opinions of medical institutes into the consideration according to paragraph 51 of Act of Medical observation. However, there were no conference asking opinions of related personnel and discussing about the patient’s situation. What’s more, there were neither any mental identification nor any date for open trial for him in the disputed case. There were many false of procedure and the judgment was lack of the legitimacy and adequacy as the consequence.